Revolutionary Communist Group

No.1

20p

'I have already agreed that the work being done by the trade unions is first rate. . . . Mr Jack Jones was in Ireland last week speaking at the annual conference of the T.G.W.U. What he said there could not be bettered. That shows that the valued support that the Government and the country get from the British trade union movement on the Irish question is first rate:

Merlyn Rees, ex-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hansard, 1.7.76, col. 630.

'~f the socialists of Britain do not recognise and uphold Ireland's right to secession, . . . it is solely because they are in fact, imperialists, not socialists. It is ridiculous. to cherish illusions that people who do not fight for lithe right to self-detennination" of the' oppressed nations, while they themselves belong to the oppressor nations, are capable of practising socialist policies.'

V. I. Lenin, Collected Works Vol. 2', p.294.

·HANDSOFF IRELAND!

Number One, December 1976 Hands Off Ireland is a bulletin

of the Revolutionary Communist Group, published by RCG Publications Ltd.

Contents

2 Editorial

3' What Will Britain Do Next?

Steve Palmer

6 British Peace-keepingBritish Torture

Phil Turner

7 The Dublin GovernmentPartners in Imperialism Francis Burke

9 Political Status for AntiImperialist Prisoners Hugh MacGrillen

11 Address to the Sinn Fein Rally on August 22nd Chris Davies

12 British Imperialism, the Press and Northern Ireland

Daniel Shaw

13 Lessons of TOM Jim Johnson

15 Letters

Editor:

Terry Marlowe

Editorial Board:

Terry Marlowe, Sheila Marston, Steve Palmer

Editorial and Business Address: 49, RailtonRoad,

London SE24 OLN.

Special Offer:

5 copies post free £ 1.00 (Britain and Ireland only)

For single issues, add

II p for postage or

l Op if overseas

© RCG Publications Ltd, World Copyright December 1976

2

Editorial

For most of the period during which the Labour government has held office, the British working class has tolerated a series of attacks on its standard of living and on its right to work. Wage restraint, massive inflation, colossal unemployment and drastic cutbacks in state expenditure have been accepted with little serious oppositionvOnly recently has any fight back begunwith the massive demonstration on November 17th. However, this demonstration was directed only against the cuts in state expenditure, and not against the Labour government's industrial strategy as a whole, of which these cuts are only a part. There is no doubt that the ruling class will try to isolate this growing opposition. One of the most potent weapons it will employ will be the argument that any opposition to its attack is 'against the national interest'.

It is argued that there is a 'national interest' which stands above the interest of the working class. The problem,

. we are told, is to 'put Britain back on its feet'. Inflation is blamed on the 'selfish' demands of the working class for 'excessive' wage rises. Workers are supposed to be 'pricing themselves out of a job'. They must therefore accept wage restraint - 'in the national interest'. And so workers are persuaded to put aside their own interests in favour! of the requirements of the capitalist I system - a system which by its very I nature is crisis-ridden.

If the British working class is to assert its independent interests against its own ruling class, it must be able to defend itself against the 'national inter- I est' argument. To do this, the working I class must reject all idea of 'national': unity with the British ruling class. It I must fight every attempt which the rul- I ing class makes to ensnare the working class with nationalism. By rejecting British nationalism, the working class unites, not with its enemy - the capital-I ist class - but with fellow exploited workers in other countries .. Only in this way can it ensure that it serves its own interests and not those of the ruling class ..

A particularly virulent example of.

reactionary nationalism is expressed in Britain's relation to Ireland. The British ruling class has attempted ·to win British workers support fOT its attacks on the Irish people, and so far it has largely succeeded in attracting that support. The 'national interest' here is .a call for national unity against the interests of the Irish people. Without fighting the widespread national chauvinism against the Irish, it will be impossible to rid the movement of the nationalism with which the British ruling class tries to head off any attack on its right to rule. If British workers accept the right of the British ruling class to rule the Irish, then how can they mount a serious challenge to its rule here in Britain?

The arguments put forward so far in the movement, and widely accepted without serious criticism, fall short of what is needed. The most common position, put forward by the left of the Labour Party and by the Communist Party, is that the British Parliament should sort the Irish question out by introducing a Bill of Rights for the North of Ireland. But this approach recognises the right of the British state to rule the Irish people. It does not disagree with Britain ruling the Irish; its only concern is how best to do this. Such a policy cannot challenge the idea of a national interest: instead it only disagrees on the details of what that national interest is. It fails to support the right of the Irish people to self-determination and is therefore incapable of defending the British working class against the attacks of the ruling class.

It has now become fashionable to argue that the so-called peace movement is showing the way forward. This' is also mistaken. The development of the peace movement shows the dangers of a perspective that does not see the fight against British imperialism as the first step on· the way to peace. This movement first began as an opposition to all violence in the North and attracted a certain amount of support on this basis. However, as it developed, the peace movement had to answer a number of questions: what is the role of the British Army? Why is it overwhelmingly Catholics and Republicans who are daily harassed, shot at and imprisoned by the British Army and the British State? It was when the peace movement answered these questions that the falsity and indeed impossibility of its unity was finally revealed. There are only two positions that- can be adopted in the struggle for' peaceopposition to British imperialism. or support (however qualified) for British

imperialism. .

For the CPGB, the peace movement

represented the first real attempt sincel the civil rights movement to unite Catholics and Protestants on a non-i sectarian basis. Let us look at the' leaders of this movement. Ciaran Mc-:

Keown has openly supported inform-: ing against people engaged in Republi-: can activities; Mairead Corrigan is on paid leave from Guiness of Northern Ireland 'in order to carry out her work' . (what union militant receives such helpful cooperation?); and Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan have isaid :

'We do not equate the vicious and determined terrorism of the Republican and Loyalist paramilitary organisa tions wi th those occasional instances when members of the security forces may have stepped beyond the rule of law.

Our attitude to the security forces is this; We fully support the rule of law, and until the Northern Irish community themselves evolve their own new community constitutions and form of government, then the RUe and the other security forces are the only legitimate upholders of the rule of law.' (Morning Star, 14.!O.76.) i

The more clearly this position is put

forward, the more divided the peace movement must become. The Catholic section of the working class cannot. and will not, support a movement which supports the role of the RUC and of the British Army in Northern Ireland. Nor can the Loyalists support a movement which does. not support the RUC and the British Army. A movement which can defend the interests of the Irish working class can only be built on an anti-imperialist basis. Anything' short of this is not only utopian but must also end up in the, imperialist camp. I 'There is a vital difference between the peace of the oppressor and the peace of the oppressed. To call for peace without taking sides on what kind of peace is necessary can only help the joppressor - the British ruling class - to win peace at the expense of the Irish people. Nothing could be more divisive than to support a movement which is playing into the hands of the ruling class. The peace movement can only' bring unity for the oppressors - of those in Britain and the North of Ireland who want the people of Ireland to accept the continued rule of Britain. This is the reason why the British Government allowed the peace movement to use Trafalgar Square for its demonstration on November 27th - the first time that a demonstration on Northern Ireland has been allowed there for four years. More than this. the real character of the peace move-I ment was shown by the way its Iol-: lowers sang 'songs of peace' while police arrested those in Trafalga~'

.Square handing out leaflets or holdIngl up banners opposing the 'Peace Peo-' pIe'. No wonder the Northern Ireland office is watching the movement with 'interest and scarcely concealed enthusiasm' (Irish Times 22.11.76).

The kind of movement which is needed. both to support the struggle of the' Irish people and to free the British' working class from the deadweight of, chauvinism which ties it to its ruling class. is a movement directed against, the British domination of Ireland, calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops. We have spelt out the need for this in our pamphlet Ireland: British ,Labour and British Imperialism. The British left has so far failed to build such a movement. despite the long history of struggle of the Irish people for their freedom from British rule. I Hands Off Ireland seeks to lay the' political basis for an anti-imperialist movement in the British working class by forging the clarity and programme required to defend the interests of British and Irish workers. We urge

you to write your views on the articles, in the Bulletin. or any other aspect of the struggle for Irish self-determination. To build an anti-imperialist movement. the ideas in the Bulletin must reach a wide audience. You can contribute to this by selling and distributing Hands Off Ireland in your trade union branch. at local labour movement meetings. and any other .political meetings you attend .

Since the articles for this issue were written. some members of, the RCG have been expelled for refusing to work under the discipline of the group and for refusing to carry out its policies. We have decided to print in this Bulletin articles written by some of the expelled' members. We do this because their contributions were developed as part of the overall perspective of the RCG's work on the Irish question.

Terry Marlowe. December] 976.

What vvill Br~_n do next?

What are the Labour government's intentions 'towards Ireland? What the government's policy is today and in the future is as unclear as it was in February 1974.' All the events since thenthe Ulster Workers Council general strike. the convening of a Constitu-. tional Convention. its failure. the ceasefire. the emergence 'of the 'Peace People' - all have been accompanied by a deafening silence from government spokesmen about Labour policy intentions. All planning and commitment to' such definite objectives as internal reform of the north. or to the establishment of a power-sharing Executive. seem to have been dropped in favour of a day-to-day response to developments. The recent assassination of the British ambassador to southern Ireland brought forth little response from the British government. What lies behind this . 'softly-softly' approach of the Labour government? Are its present policies as aimless as they appear. and what will it do in the future? What attitude is in the interests of the British working cl~ss?

.. . I

Present British policy does have some clear sense of direction. It has been trying to produce some form of 'solution' which has at least the facade of catholics and protestants 'sharing power'. At the same time it has tried to

. refute all _accusations of British inter-

ference, from Loyalists and republicans. by avoiding any open declaration of its plans. It has achieved this by dangling enticing but invisible carrots. and by wielding equally invisible but no less painful sticks at the various sections of society in the north of Ireland.

Northern politicians are being tempted with juicy prospects if they produce a superficially 'democratic' form of 'power-sharing'. The British government hopes that their more 'extreme' policies will be ignored by their constituents.

The Loyalist section of the working class - which formed the backbone of the UWC strike - is suffering unernployment on a serious scale for the first time since the Second World War. The British government has tried to take advantage of this by 'blackmailing' the Loyalists with suggestions that a more

I cooperative attitude can be traded for jobs. Although the closure of northern factories and the resulting loss. of employment are clearly the product of the crisis of British capitalism. the govern-

.mentfras been markedly reluctant to, save the jobs of workers in strongly] Loyalist areas:

On the ~ther side. the republican sec-] tion of the working class is bein~ encouraged to reject the struggle for. freedom from British domination in[

favour of some 'solution' within the bounds of the existing six-county statelet. This is the purpose of the ceasefire, which until recently made the pre. sence of the British army seem less of a burden. On the other hand, the ceasefire has invited a questioning of the political role of the Republican Movement, whose support has sprung from its military role as defence against British imperialism. Further, the ending of internment is designed to help undermine support for the Republican Movement, and to seduce the republican section of the working class into accepting the existing six-county statelet. With stick and carrot, the British government hopes that a 'solution', within the bounds of the six-county statelet, will emerge. The problem it faces, in maintaining British domination, is how to do this without awakening either the wrath of the Loyalist workers or determined opposition from the republican section of the working class.

The signs that this policy will not achieve its intended (if unstated) objectives are already appearing. Hardcore support for the republicans has not been eroded, despite the Peace Marches. The Loyalist workers interpret the government's indifference ·to growing protestant unemployment as part of a deliberate plan for withdrawal, while northern politicians are refusing to bite at the bait on the end of the government's fishing line. Inside both the north and Britain, there are growing demands for a new policy. The departure of Merlyn Rees, and his replacement by Roy Mason, provide the British government with an opportunity for making a shift in policy. But in what direction can the British Government shift?

Illusions and Reality

The hard reality at the present time is that the Labour government or its Tory 'successor is going to drop this carrot and stick policy for naked repression. The ground has been well prepared in Britain for such a change: 'public opinion' has been trained to bay for blood at the slightest mention of the Irish question. The danger is that 'left' opposition to this turn will vainly, oppose the intensification of British re-: pression with calls for a 'democratic" policy. implemented by Westminster., Such 'opposition' Cannot attack the, roots of the problem. This is because the problem is Westminster rule ofl T reland. Yet this fundamental truth is I largely ignored in debate in the labour movement.

The general attitude in the labour movement, since the Irish question forced its way back onto the British,

4

political stage in 1968, has been that the Labour government's policy has been basically 'humanitarian' - that is, that its aim was to democratise the north, somehow. We could easily bel forgiven for thinking that this was and will be the continuing aim of the Lab-I our government. Indeed, the present' Prime Minister, writing three years ago in his book on Northern Ireland - A House Divided - argued for liberal reforming measures to guarantee civil rights, to increase employment, and to lead to eventual reunification:

'So, at the end of the day, I would like to see Ireland come together again. If and when it does, it will be a signal to the world that the people themselves have freely entered into a new compact because they are at peace and at ease with one another and recognize how much they have in common. If, as I hope, that time comes, the rest of us will rejoice that the warm-hearted qualities of generosity and courage, found in both communities, have finally outweighed their

differences.' (p 187). .

Such lofty arguments are' similar in their sentiment to all the arguments advanced by all spectrums of opinion, 'in the labour movement. They also! seem far removed from the sordidj pre-occupation of the Tories with, profit-making. Labour ideas, whatever, the difficulty in implementing them, seem starkly opposed to the coarse interests of capital. Nothing, however. could be further from the truth.

Fine words, such as those used by J ames Callaghan, have actually been used to justify the policy needed -by British capital in the past period. The interests of British capital are changing as it goes into crisis, and with them will change the policy which it needs to enforce in the north of Ireland. The illusions of the British labour movement are preserved by ignoring the needs of British capital.

The' Profits of Democracy

What were these needs in the past? In, the earlier, pre-Partition period, Ire- i land's importance for British capital! was not direct - that is, it was not a I major area fOT direct exploitation by industrial capital. There was very little I direct investment in Ireland. The eco-' nomic importance of Ireland lay in the support it gave to the aristocracy as a source of rent. It was a source of labour-power which could help to keep up competition amongst workers for jobs in Britain and a source of cheap agricultural products - a factor which could indirectly help the production of profits in Britain itself. The prospect of Home Rule was not a direct threat to British capital. It did. however. pose a direct threat to capital in the north of Ireland - Unionist capital. .

Acutely dependent on the British Empire for a protected market for linen goods and for ships, the northern capitalists naturally plumped for Partition when Home Rule was threatened. However, Partition did not grant northern capital a new lease of life. Instead it merely ensured that its decline would be drawn out rather than sudden.

The development of alternative textiles to linen, produced by more efficient techniques. meant that the linen industry underwent a steady erosion throughout the existence of the northern statelet. The development of the airliner put paid to the demand for liners, which had been a staple diet for the massive Harland and Wolff shipyard. The resulting decline was temporarily halted during the war, when the need of a beleaguered British capital demanded an expansion of agricultural production, of clothing manufacture, and of shipbuilding.

The post-war resurgence of the major imperialist powers posed a major challenge to both linen and shipbuildingfor the restructuring of capital led to the emergence of highly productive competitors in textiles and shipbuilding. Northern capital was threatened with an absolute decline. And this not only in direct economic terms - for the strength of Loyalism sprang from its enormous support amongst the protestant working class and petit bourgeoisie. If Unionist capital could no longer guarantee economic privileges to this social base, then its very existence as an all-class bloc might be brought into question.

The strategy for survival was an attempt to encourage the import of foreign capital to furnish the jobs which northern capital could not provide. To some extent it succeeded: employment in the traditional industries fell by half, but government-sponsored industry and the expansion of state expenditure meant that the redundant were absorbed, leaving the overall employment level static. The influx of industry placed the responsibility for furnishing jobs in the hands .of the Stormont regime. This allowed Unionism to maintain the privileges of the Loyalist section of the working class. The discrimination exercised in public appointments is well known. Private industry was located in the predominantly protestant east. Thus although the classic position of the skilled protestant worker had been eroded,. new forms of privilege had emerged to preserve this aristocracy of labour.

Nevertheless, the influx of foreign capital was not without contradictions. It had interests of its own. and these interests found their local friends and enemies, The foreign capital!

differed, in some important respects from that of Unionism, Unionist capital depended for its profits on keeping wages low and hours long, Its factories and mills were small and inefficient. The foreign capital, by contrast, maintained its profits by raising the productivity of labour through the use of modern machinery. Its factories were larger' and more efficient that those of Unionist capital. Wages formed a much higher share of the costs of the final commodity for Unionist capital than they did for foreign capital. Unionist capital was therefore vitally interested in keeping the level of wages down. This is what lies at the heart of the sectarian statelet - the need to keep the working class divided, and to maintain a reserve army of labour in order to keep wages down. thus preserving Unionist capital. For foreign capital, on the other hand, the level of wages was a comparatively trivial issue. There were thus two different responses to the emergence of the civil rights movement, and to the demand for reforms. Unionist capital saw the granting .of reforms as a clear threat to continued profitability, whereas for foreign capital. the political instability which might follow if reforms were not granted was a potential danger. British capital responded to the demand for civil rights by trying to hide the sectarian statelet behind 'moderate' and 'democratic' institutions of government. Yet such feeble experiments with political cosmetics were enough to frighten off Loyalists, who' interpreted every seeming concession as a threat to their privileges. As ai result. British plans to bring seemingly]

, democratic regimes into being havef failed through Loyalist hostility - in-] evitably, given the nature of the Nor-I them Ireland statelet. The gerry-built constructions collapse into matchwood at their first contact with reality: the, reality of a state designed and run to: preserve the privileges of a majority] of its population. :

Yet a far greater obstacle to the Bri-: tish plans is the national struggle. While the revolt of the Unionist capitalist class is, for British capital, at worst insubordination. the plebeianl character of the national movement poses a funda.mental threat. T. he awfull possibilities which might open up on the morrow of independence are al potential danger to the British ruling class, whatever the political shortcomings of the republicans. The Loyalists at least make no pretence to having socialist leanings, nor would they represent a strategic threat to British capital's west flank, because they are totally dependent on the British link

.for their political survival. An independent Ireland. won by a popular movement. offers no such guarantees, . It is therefore inevitable that it is the republican section of the working class which will suffer repression at the hands of the British army.

The Future of British Policy

The attempt to bring a 'moderate' regime into being has been at the core of Labour policy. In this. they have had the active cooperation of. and have actively cooperated with, the

Tories. As Callaghan puts it: .

'Thankfull y, since the crisis of 1969, broad support for both Labour and Conservative Governments was forthcoming from the Opposition of the day and each Government was very conscious of the need to frame its policies so as to carry the Opposition' with it in broad principle. This made the formation and execution of a consistent policy by Britain very much easier than it might have been.' (p 179).

Such cooperation was naively welcomed by Labour supporters as a change of heart by the 'nasty' Tories, instead of being seen for what it was. When have the Tories ever 'cooperated' in a policy which opposed the needs of British capital to make a profit?

The signs are that British capital now, needs a different policy implemented in the north. Instead of 'reform'. the growing cry, inside the north and in Britain, is for 'stability'. This need for 'stability' has been emphasised by a. prominent northern capitalist, Sir

Desmond Lorrimer: .

'Our economic survival and our political. survival are so interdependent that we cannot discuss one without reference to 'the other. The prerequisite to economic

survival in this province is firm and, decisive government giving rise to political stability. Whether it is by direct, rule or devolved government is immaterial.' (Irish Times 11.5.76)

In the late 1960s, British capital felt no pressing necessity to keep wages in the north far below British levels. But today it is faced with a profits crisis. The level of wages in the north is now very significant for the profitability of British firms there. The CBl has spelt this out:

'Wage rates are DOW much more comparable to those in Great Britain than in former years: power is very much more expensive than in Great Britain and other European countries; transport rates have 'now become a significant element in manufacturing costs. . . . If there is no advantage to be gained by investing in Northern Ireland, investors will put their money elsewhere.' (Irish Times 7.6.76)

The interests of British and Unionist capital, which previously diverged, are

'now moving closer and closer together. The need for 'stability' and the need in the coming period to restrain wages and increase productivity in the north, point not to a withdrawal, but to intensified repression, directed against the minority in the north. This has been taken up by the Tories, who are howling louder than ever before for the blood of the minority.

Ar:gus Maude, a Tory MP, has written that the British government must take advantage of the waverings and uncertainty amongst the minority to unleash repression:

'The tragic deaths of the Maguire children in Belfast have sharpened the growing feeling of the peaceful catholic community that the IRA brings them nothing but trouble and must be removed from their midst. If too much time elapses before action is taken, the usual IRA intimidation tactics will drive them back into the state of apathetic neutrality which has always made the security forces' task so difficult.'

.Quite how the 'neutrality' of the 'peaceful catholic community' makes the 'task' so difficult he does not explain. One might have thought that if the catholic community were neutral that would make the task easier. In fact. Maude goes on to imply that the real intimidation which catholics will suffer will come from the British army. This amounts to a confession that Britain cannot operate a 'democratic' domination of Ireland:

'No one should pretend that carrying out this task would be easy for the security forces. The difficulties of searching out and securing terrorists in Belfast, in Londonderry, and in South

. Armagh are very great and the operation would certainly cause some hardship (and provoke some resentment) among the catholic population.' ('Why Now is the Time to Smash the IRA', Sunday Express 15.8.76)

The same day, the News 'Of the World carried an article by the Tory spokesman on Northern Ireland, Airey Neave. Subtitled. with a blunt awareness of priorities, '050. Me., MP'. he argued for a new repressive policy: 'There must be a change in security tactics. The Army and the local security forces must be released from their present low profile and go on the offensive ....

Recent events have shown that there is massive public support in Northern Ireland from both Catholics and Protestants for a determined. anti-terrorist campaign ....

The time is ripe to smash the Provisional IRA.'

The Tories are clear that democracy cannot be preserved together with Bri-· tish domination. and that repression must now be ruthlessly implemented against the nationalist minority.

The Labour Party believes that: 'There would be no value in the Government rushing into another major initiative at this stage.' (Report /0 Labour

Party Conference, p 106) .

It mayor may not have the stomach to do all of capital's dirty work. But how far will the labour movement go to put up a real opposition to the interests of British capital? The signs are far from encouraging. The conflict between utopian ideals and grubby material interests will come to. a head sooner or later over the Irish question. The Irish people, and especially the catholics in the north, know too well that it is the materia I interests of the British ruling class which have won out time after time in the past. The loss has been borne by the Irish, who have seen hopes for democracy dashed and any advance towards socialism blocked by British domination and the consequent repression. Yet this lesson has yet to be learnt by the British labour movement, and it has suffered continuously by supporting the British ruling class. The ruling class is preparing to change

. its tactics and unleash widespread re-

pression once again. This will throw back the movement for national freedom and, with it.. the struggle for socialism in Ireland. This can only be avoided if the British labour movement reverses its policy, confronting the ruling class by demanding an end to British domination and the immediate withdrawal of troops.

Steve Palmer

6

BRITISH PEACEKEEPINGBRITISH TORTURE

When torture and barbaric treatment of political prisoners is exposed in Chile, Brazil or South Africa the voice of the British labour movement is often correctly heard in condemnation of the brutalities of political repression. On the third anniversary of the coup in Chile in September this year, many trade union banners were seen on the streets of London and Glasgow. showing opposition to the Junta. Even such figures as Jack Jones of the TGWU - whose record in support of wage restraint is well knownhave added their names to the list of opponents of the Chilean regime. But the real nature of their internationalism is to be seen when torture is practised, not only in South Africa or Chile, but by the British state in a British colony, such as Ireland.

This is the importance of the recent Strasbourg case, where the European, Commission of Human Rights found the British state guilty of torturing repu blican internees. A detailed re-: port of the proceedings has revealed: that 'interrogation techniques' used atl a British army barracks in 19711 (apart from the routine beatings and, ill-treatment) included techniques of: sensory deprivation. These were:' covering the head with a thick, black! hood, deprivation of sleep for several; days, forcing victims to stand against. a wall supported only by the fingertips, and subjecting them to continu-: ous 'white noise' from a machine speci-: fically designed to induce disorienta-, tion in its victims. There can. be no: doubt that this is torture. Its effects I are permanent. Victims have suffered severe depression. nightmares and: hallucinations. Several have since suffered serious physical illness. One has died' of a heart attack. These are typical side-effects of the 'traumatic' neurosis' produced by this method of torture.

The British government has not; attempted to deny that it practised' these techniques on the internees. In-I stead, the tortures have been presented I

. by the state and its press simply as' excesses which occured in the past.:

Merlyn Rees, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, accused the Dublin government of 'raking over the past' in bringing the charges and the Guardian said that:

'Dublin will be guilty of torturing Nor" thern Ireland if it goes on force-feeding the Provisionals with propaganda.' (Guardian 3.9.76)

The press faithfully reprinted government statements which claimed that the sensory deprivation techniques had been abandoned and that 'action' had been taken against those responsible for their use. The Times leader of September 9th went so far as to point out that the Strasbourg findings did not put Britain in the same league as 'Greece, Brazil, Iran, Argentine.' By trivialising the tortures and relegating them to history the British state hopes to discredit those who are pressing the charges and to preserve the image of its army as a 'peacekeeping' force.

The real facts of British torture in Ireland are a little different to those presented .in the British press. "The tortures took place at the same time as internment was introduced. By imprisoning hundreds of republicans without trial and carrying out controlled experiments in sensory deprivation the army hoped to intimidate the catholic .population. The British army is not a peacekeeping force at all but is the last resort of British imperialism in its attempt to continue its political domination over the Irish people. It is prepared to use any methods to crush the minority who resist that domination. Torture is just one method which the British state has found necessary to beat the republican section of the population into submission.

Since British imperialism has already found it necessary to use torture, there is little doubt that it will find it necessary to use' it again. The Irish Times of September 4th printed a

. Ministry of Defence statement which admitted that British soldiers were still receiving training in sensory deprivation techniques. The army has refused to state what 'action' it has taken against those responsible for the tortures, but the European Commission report indicates that several of the torturers have in fact been promoted at a very rapid rate. Sucli facts make ridiculous any claim that .the tortures were excesses in the past.

In fact; for Irish workers. these revelations are nothing new. Torture and

ill-treatment of republicans are dayto-day events in the north of Ireland. They are reported every week in tbe republican and Irish press. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association has stated its intention of taking more cases to the European Commission. We fully support the pressing of these cases. The more evidence is produced of British torture. the clearer it will be that torture is a way of life for a ruling . class which hypocritically claims to stand for the defence of 'democracy' and 'humanity' in Ireland.

The British left, however, has failed completely to grasp this central point - that torture is the necessary consequence of British occupation of Ireland. Left Labour MP. Tom Litterick has shown this failure in a letter printed in the Manchester Evening News, where he discusses the question as if it were merely a matter of shame for the British people;

'The discomfort of the British people at the indictment of the European Commission of Human Rights is particularly hard to bear because we were not allowed to know what was being done

in our name. The torture was done in secret and we hear of it in shame .... Freedom of information to replace the Official Secrets Act will restore not only our right to know but our right to be responsible for the suffering we may inflict on others.' (Manchester Evening News 8.10.76.)

Right wing commentators of the capitalist press have no such feelings of 'shame' and see the situation more clearly than Litterick can. as this Daily Mail article shows:

'this kind of interrogation was not pleasant, but it was necessary and nothing' to be ashamed of.' (Daily Mail 3.9.76.) Tom Litterick clearly believes that torture is unnecessary in a society in which democracy. and accountability are the keywords. But his argument is incapable of confronting a state which sees torture as a necessity to defend its interests in Ireland. .

The Communist Party has gone further by demanding that the British

state discipline its torturers and mend its ways in Ireland. General Secretary Gordon Mcl.eanan has commented: 'We condemn the torturers and the politicians who have covered up for

them. But condemnation is not enough. The policies from which this foulness springs has to be ended. Repression, discrimination and deprivation must be reo placed by peace, democracy and better living standards.' (Morning Star 3.9.76)

But to point out that the government has sanctioned torture and then to demand in the same breath that it introduces democracy shows the uto-. pianism of the Communist Party's arguments. The fact that torture has proved necessary for British imperialism shows that it is incapable of providing democracy and that the presence of the British Army can solve none of the problems of the Irish people.

..

:Only from this standpoint will it be possible to mobilise on the question of Ireland the same degree of opposition that questions such as Chile have aroused in the labour movement.

Phil Turner

.. IHEDUBLIN GOVERNMENT

ARINERS IN IMPERIALISM

The state of the southern Irish economy was well characterised recently by a decision of the EEC Commission to declare it a 'disaster area'. The Financial Times headline: 'From Golden Boy to Deadbeat' 01.9.76) sums up how the world crisis of capitalism has shattered all possibility of

. southern Ireland emerging from the .econornic abyss to which imperialism has historically consigned it. Recent reports from the National Economic and Social Council and the Economic and Social Research Institute confirm this picture. The government has had

Ito borrow heavily from international bankers to cover successive budget

~efiCits, and inevitably the working class are bearing the brunt of the recesion. Inflation is double that in Britain nd still rising. The true level of unemployment, according to the Finanlcia! Times is about 18% or nearly one [in five of the labour force.

[Predictably, the ruling class has not [hesitated to attack workers for not [accepting further cuts in living stantdards. The Prime Minister, Liam Cos[grave, 'has had the following to say:

I'Those who would pursue such a course lof action' (reject the proposed National ; Wage Agreement - Ed.) would bear a

. [heavy responsibility for the pursuit of I narrow _ sectional interests at this time

which would. tear our society apart.' (Irish Times, 1.7.76).

And more recently, the government's economic 'plan' has referred to the 'selfish attitudes and actions on the part of sectional or minority groups.'

The ranting and raving over wage levels is of course common to the capitalist class of all nations. What is particular about the Irish situation is the severity with which the world crisis is affecting the country and the extent of the wage cuts which are necessary. The uneven development of capitalism has stamped various parts of the world as economically advanced or backward. Capitalism cannot reverse or overcome this disparity but inevitably tends to reinforce it. This is the meaning of the imperialist epoch, an epoch which is characterised by a conflict among advanced nations for the exploitation of' the weaker economies. At times of crisis the conflict and exploitation express themselves most nakedly.

Ireland is. despite the development of recent years, -an economically backward country where the industries controlled by national capitalist interests are disintegrating as they are .opened up to international competition. Recognising this. the capitalist class has had. no option by to sub-

ordinate its own direct interests to those of foreign capital which is offered massive concessions to arrange the efficient exploitation of Irish workers. The national capitalists play the role of junior partners and share "accordingly in the profits extracted.

This dependence on foreign investment places the southern Irish ruling class in a contradictory position. The running of its own economy, ie the ability to exploit its own working class is the objective of every national capitalist class. But for the Irish capitalists to challenge the domination of foreign capital would be a slippery and dangerous path. with every likelihood that it would be stampeded underfoot by those who had most to gain in resolutely opposing imperialism - the Irish working class.

For the Irish ruling class there is only one possible strategy to follow. To stay firmly in the saddle it must crush that class whose interests are most irreconcilable with its own - the working class. As yet however it is in no position to carry this through to a successful conclusion. The trade union movement is organisationally strong with a tradition' of militancy unequalled in developed capitalist countries. Recent months have seen the unions reject the 1976-77 National

7

Wage Agreement, an eight-week bank strike involving serious damage to Irish capital and a multitude of unofficial strikes. In contrast to the 4t% rise negotiated in Britain, the pay agreement in southern Ireland would have meant an increase of 13%. Even. the trade union bureaucrats have felt obliged to respond to the prevailing militancy with fighting talk. The general secretary of the ICTU for instance has had the following to say: 'There is no possibility of the Irish trade union movement agreeing to a course of action which can only result in a steady decline of wages and the advertisement of Ireland as the place where cheap labour is available.' (Irish Times 22.1.76). But whether the trade union movement agrees or disagrees, this is what the maintenance of the capitalist system dictates. as the Dublin government well understands. In the recent period it has pursued a course of ideo-. logical pressure on the one hand and threatened confrontation on the other. Rising unemployment is blamed on the unions while simultaneously legislation is introduced to begin to curb their power. The Bank Remuneration Act introduced to freeze the pay of bank workers and the provision for classifying certain strikes as subject to the notorious Offences against the State Act indicate that the Government will not haulk at open confrontation when the opportune moment arrives.

Although the militant tradition of Irish trade unions stands in favour of the working class. struggle on economic issues alone will not allow it to defend Its living standards. High unemployment is already sapping some of the militancy. The bank workers' strike was defeated. The unions have now accepted an interim settlement as a prelude to further talks on a national wage agreement. If a political alternative is not taken up by the trade union membership, the government will succeed in driving down wages through unemployment, ideological pressure and later open coercion. The only effective defence of working class living standards at a time of crisis lies in the growth of political consciousness welding together the working class in a party based on a revolutionary commitment to overthrow capital-: ism. In developing this consciousness, the working class will be brought face to face with the inability of its own ruling class to offer concessions or to introduce reforms. Economic control lies elsewhere than with the national capitalist class. As the Financial Times bluntly put it:

, ... the Irish government is far from being able to control its own economy

8

as the external value of its .currency and even the interest rates that it can obtain here (in Ireland) are largely under British influence.' (Financial Times 11.9.76).

The economic struggle of workers in Ireland inevitably comes up against the domination of the country by international capital. This is the power that stands behind the Irish state. British capital is the key element of this power in that the British State has been historically charged with overseeing capitalist interests in Ireland. As the crisis develops further the economic struggle in Ireland will only be taken forward if it is linked to an antiimperialist programme - one that simultaneously confronts the Irish state and British domination.

The threat of such an eventuality is well recognised by the ruling class and it underlies its determination first of all to eliminate the most immediate threat, the Republican movement, before taking. on the trade unions and

the labour movement generally. A minister in the Dublin government, Conor Cruise O'Brien has speJt out his pian of reaction as one parallel to that pursued by Major-General Eanes and the leaders of the Portuguese Socialist Party in strangling the Portuguese revolution:

, ... it is only prudent to work on the assumption that the coming year may be one of increasing danger in which the security of the State may be challenged from various quarters. I believe the Labour Party under any such conditions which may arise will be no less determined in the defence of democracy than are our Portuguese comrades.' (Speech to the Clontarf Constituency Council of the Irish Labour Party.)

This 'defence of democracy' req ui res. it seems. the suspension of democracy. The repressive legislation recently introduced in southern Ireland involving the suspension in part of the constitution was hailed by the Daily Telegraph in August as the most draconian

Chronology of Repr~ 191

February: After his death in Wakefield prison, arrangements were made to fly the body of Provisional IRA hunger striker Frank Stagg to Dublin airport. The government refused to let the body be flown to Dublin and diverted the plane to Shannon. The remains were buried in a grave prepared by the government and burial in a republican plot was not allowed. Having posted armed guards at the grave for several weeks, the authorities' then covered the plot over with concrete.

April: At 7.30 am on 7 April. the Special Branch carried out a series of raids in Dublin. 22 peop1e were arrested - mainly members of the Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP). 15 reported that they were deprived of sleep, and food and were kicked and beaten. Doctors later confirmed the injuries. The majority were later released without charges being brought. April: A demonstration called by Provisional Sinn Fein to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Easter Rising - an event commemorated by the Government itself in previous years - was declared illegal by the Government. Civil servants and state

employees were threatened with loss of pension rights if they attended. 33 people - including a Labour member of the Dail- were fined for participating in the meeting.

June: Noel and Marie Murrav were sentenced to death for alleged murder of an off-duty policeman. The defendants declared themselves to be opposed to the state and refused to participate in their mock trial by a Special Criminal court. They were sentenced without a jury and the only evidence was 'confessions' extracted under duress by the police. The accused were not present for two thirds of the proceedings.

July: The Supreme Court allowed proceedings to begin against Hibernia and the Irish Times for contempt. The offence was to print letters criticising the conduct of the Special Criminal Court in the Murray case.

Septemher: The Irish current affairs iournal Hibernia appeared with two blank pages where an article naming RUC officejs involved in torture of republicans in the north of Ireland was to have been printed .. Irish Times Ltd had refused to print the article

in any 'democracy'.

As with other underdeveloped capitalist countries, repression is nothing new in southern Ireland The Offences against the State Act 1939. the wages stand-still order and Emergency Powers Act or !94[1. the reintroduction of internment in 1957. all testify to the ruth Ins determination of the national capitalist clas-, to crush opposition to its rule. This class established its dominance in 1922 through the use of un brid led terror after the 'British Army had handed over con-

trol to it in the south. 111.1l()() Republicans and socialists were interned, over SO were executed without trial and all revolutionary groups were banned as treasonable in t he following decade. It is such an onslaught which the capitalist class is preparing for again in Ireland today. as it is buffeted bv the storms of' the world capitalist crisis. The ruling class is banking on the British Army holding the north

tbus ensuring the Dublin government a free rein for the imposition of a regime of outright reaction. As the Tory spokesman on Ireland. Airey Neave frankly admitted at the Tory Party Conference:

. 'It is not surprising that the Eire government is anxious to make sure that the troops stay in Ulster'.

The Tories recognise what is at stake in Ireland but no such clarity yet exists in the working class. If it did, if the questions of oppression and class solidarity were understood above the media's presentation of a battle between bigoted sectarians, the response from the working class would have been clear - for the immediate withdrawal of troops and solidarity with the Irish people against oppression.

Francis Burke

•

•

sssson In

76

for fear of legal aCII\'n. lhc article has now appeared without the names of the officers.

October: The' f inancial

I'i1llt".1 (18

October) reported ihu: the g(,,\crnmcnt had instructed the RTf -taic broadcasting authority to ban the Provisional and Ofticial IRA and the Prov ixional Sinn Fein from all radio and TV programmes.

October: The Times (I October) reported that the government planned a hew, no-jury Special Criminal Court to deal with the backlog of cases. Since the Court was first opened 10 deal with political offences in May 1972. there have been 772 convictions in 1.042 cases. The Times abo reported that part of Curragh military camp has been converted to it prison lay-out as part of 'contingency olans for an increase in Provisional IRA prisoners.'

These are actions which the southern government has taken over the past vear. The J!overnmcnt has now at its disposal the recently passed Criminal Law Act and the Emergency Powers Act.

the South

The Criminal Law Act

Co Gives the Army the right to arrest and detain 'suspects'.

j Allows the closure of buildings believed to be used by 'unlawful' organisations for 12 months at the request of a police chief-superintendent. o Allows prison warders to search prisoners, their relatives and legal representatives.

o Increase the sentences which the Special Criminal Court (which sits without a jury) can impose for membership of an 'unlawful organisation' from 2 to 7 years.

o Creates new - offences such as 'obstruction of government and 'usurpation of the functions of government' ..

The Emergency Powers Act

o Allows the police to detain suspects without charge or reference to a court for 7' days on the word of a police chief-superintendent.

o Allows the Government to declare an indefinite State of Emergency, which makes it impossible for the government to contravene the constitution.

-

POLITICAL STATUS FOR ANTIIMPERIALIST PRISONERS

IN IRELAND

'When the first boy or girl is sentenced after March 1 st, will YOH march after us until we pull the town down? It might not all be down yet but by God, if it's necessary it'll come down, stone by stone: (An Phoblacht, paper of the Provisional Sinn Fein, 9.8.76)

That remark by Maire Drumm, former Vice-president of Provisional Sinn Fein. who was murdered by Loyalists last October, earned her three weeks detention at the hands of the British administration in Northern Ireland. It demonstrates the determination of the Republican movement to resist the ending of special category status for political prisoners in Northern Ireland and to oppose the brutal treatment meted out to Republican prisoners in jails in Britain and in southern Ireland.

At present there are over two thousand prisoners held throughout Britain and Ireland for taking part in the antiimperialist struggle. Most of these are held in Northern Ireland (Long Kesh now holds more people than at any previous time) and the vast majority are Republicans drawn from the catholic working. class .. Some 40 of the prisoners are held for no other offence than attempting to escape from internment.

Special category status for prisoners convicted of offences committed for political reasons was introduced by the Whitelaw administration in June 1972 following a hunger strike by Republican prisoners in Crumlin Road Jail Belfast. The political significance· of this concession is that it constitutes a· recognition by the British State that the struggle in Ireland is to free the country of British domination. This made it very difficult for the British state to deny the political content of Republican violence. In consequence, much propaganda effort over the succeeding period has been put into portraying the Republicans as 'criminal lunatics', 'thugs', 'sectarian madmen' etc. A successful presentation of the ! IRA as a criminal gang would remove . the politics from the national libera[tion struggle, isolate the Republicans

,

9

and make it easy to dress up repression as 'peace-keeping'.

The capitalist press, especially in Britain, has done its best to downplay the political nature of the struggle and to' present it as a question of 'law and order'. The hypocrisy of such a claim was graphically revealed' by a recent article of the Starry Plough, paper of the 'Irish Republican Socialist Party. This showed that between September 1973 and May 1975, charges of assault, malicious wounding, murder and attempted murder were brought against 46 members of the. security forces. resulting in 19 convictions and no jail sentences. It hardly needs to be added that the capitalist press did its best to hush up these incidents. Clearly. neither it nor the capitalist state is in any position to set itself up as arbiter of what is criminal and what is political! As part of the strategy of 'depoliticisation' ie denying the political content of the struggle, special category status for prisoners in Northern Ireland charged with offences committed after March 1 st 1976 is being ended. In an effort to defuse the opposition that is building up to this step, there has been no attempt as yet to remove special category status from those charged with offences committed before this date. Nor has the British administration felt confident enough to implement the new proposals decisively. Only on September 14th was the first prisoner, Kieran ,Nugent sentenced to three years under

the new rules. For refusing to wear prison clothes, Nugent has been held naked in solitary confinement. Before long. if the British State has its way many other Republicans and Republican Socialist prisoners will be receiving

. the same barbaric treatment.

The concessions involved in special category status - freedom to wear one's own clothes. more facilities for correspondence. weekly visits and food parcels from relatives. association with other political prisoners, the right to refuse penal work and to engage in handicraft and educational activitiesmeagre though they are. are well worth defending. They have been fought for also in southern Ireland where the harassment and intimidation of prisoners. particuJa.rly in Portlaoise Jail, leaves no doubt as to the viciousness of the Dublin government in its treatment of Republicans.

The British State rivals the Dublin government in viciousness. Hunger<striker Frank Stagg was starved to death rather than be given the right to transfer to a jail in Ireland. In Albany prison in September. republican prisoners who barricaded a corridor to protest at the brutal treatment of a comrade were almost torn apart- by prison warders, encouraged no doubt by the acquittal of the Winson Green prison officers. Four were hospitalised; one - Sean Campbell - had a broken arm, broken leg, two broken fingers and fractured ribs. in Brixton, repub-

lican prisoner Patrick Joseph Hackett. who lost a leg in a recent explosion has been subjected to constant humiliation and abuse. Noel Jenkinson, republican and active trade unionist. framed and sentenced to 30 years for the Aldershot bombing. in October • died in the security wing of Leicester prison allegedly of a heart attack. Permission for an independent autopsy. was refused at the inquest, just as the right to appeal against conviction had been denied him 4 years earlier. All this testifies to the hypocrisy of the British definition of criminal behaviour. The British left has failed to support politically the case for the retention of special category status. as witnessed by the minute turn-out on the demonstra tion held in support of this demand on August 22nd. It was left mainly to the Republican movement to protest and demonstrate. This is just one more example of the present impotence of the labour movement in the face of British imperialism's continuing plans to inflict itself on Ireland. The point that needs to be driven home in the British working class today is that the struggle for Irish freedom entails support for the freeing of all anti-imperialist prisoners and support for the. campaign to defend political status.

Hugh MacGrillen

Ireland-British Labour and British Imperialism

Revolutionary Communist No 3/4 November 1975

Inflation, the Crisis and the Post-War Boom P Bullock & 0 Yaffe

Once Again on Productive and Unproductive' Labour P Howell

This pamphlet, already in its 3rd Edition, is having a significant impact on sections of the labour movement. It takes up the dominant view in the movement today: namely, the call for a 'Bill of Rights' to bring democracy to Northern Ireland. It shows that this perspective can solve none of the problems Ireland faces as a country dominated by imperialism, and that it simply reinforces Britain's role as an oppressor nation. The pamphlet draws out the dangers facing a labour movement that supports its own bourgeoisie's imperialist role. It argues for an anti-imperialist movement to be built in the British working class, based on the recognition of the Irish people's right to self-determination, and the demand for the immediate withdrawal of British Troops. Price 25p

10

Revolutionary Communist No 5

'Women's Oppression under Capitalism'. 'South Africa: The Crisis in Britain and the Apartheid Economy'.

'South Africa: International Solidarity and the

Price: 50p. (plus II p postage)

From RCG Publications Ltd ..

49 Railton Road, London SE24 OLN.

,AUGUST 22ND 1976 DEM{JNSTRATION.:

Address by Chris Davies of the Revolutionary Communist Group, Lincoln's Inn Fields, Londoa, llnd August; 1976, following the demonstration on political status organised by the Provisional Sinn Fein.

Comrades.

We in the RCG have marched with you today to show our solidarity for the struggle that is being waged to defend political status. The whole strategy of British Imperialism over the last two years in Ireland has been to obtain a breathing space for itself before commencing a new assault. This was the reasoning behind the so-called 'low profile' of the last period - a low profile that did not stop the army of occupation from engaging in planned selective assassinations such as that of Peter Cleary and others. The intention was to isolate the Republican movement and to incorporate the middle class politicians of the SDLP into the six-county state machine. The attempt to remove political status is the cul:minating point of this strategy and we for our part recognise the importance 'of the campaign against this and 'pledge our full support on the basis of the slogans we have used on the march -today: Free all anti-imperialist politictal prisoners - Troops out now.

'For us in Britain. the major task is to 'lay the basis for building a movement in the working class in solidarity with the struggle of the Irish people. And here we must admit' that the progress made in this regard has not been good .. There is not a single trade union ban-

Iner for instance on the demonstration today and there has only been a minilmal turn out of left organisations. It is

Iclear that although there is much talk of the unity and indivisibility of the struggle of the working class in Britain and that of the Irish people. the understanding of what this consists of and how it should be argued for is far from, 'complete.

We in the RCG have consistently argued that the question that must be posed -in the working class is the question: Why are there British troops in Ireland? And the answer we give to this question. an answer that clarifies the relation between the struggle of the Irish people and that of the working class in Britain. is that British troops

are in Ireland because the consequences of their withdrawal would be a catastrophic blow to the interests of British Capital. It is the presence of British troops that sustains the sectarian orange statelet and that perpetuates the divisions in the Irish working class. At the present moment in Ireland. there are 200.000 men and women unemployed. the highest percentage unemployment in Europe. In the coming period. as the world crisis of capitalism deepens further. the Irish working class will be asked to bear the burden of this crisis through lower wages and worsening conditions. But if this is to happen and if imperialism is not to suffer a defeat. the presence of the British army is essential.

It is this point that we must consistently argue in the British working class. The presence of the army in Ireland is not a policy for British imperialism; it is a dire necessity if it is not to suffer a major defeat. In this regard we must offer some words of fraternal criticism to the previous speaker who spoke of 'getting through to the thick skulls at Westminster'. This we believe is a misunderstanding of what is required. It is not at the politicians at Westminster (whose thick skulls do not prevent them from seeing that it is in the interests of their own skins to keep the army in Ireland) but at the British working class that we must aim our propaganda. It is clear that the British working class. influenced by centuries of chauvinist propaganda. does not yet understand what is at stake in Ireland. In 1971. 1972 and again in 1975. the TUC [has voted' overwhelmingly for 'a sotcalled 'Bill of Rights' or. to put it ·bluntly. for yet another British plan for Ireland. It is the domination of these ideas. vigorously supported by the reactionary arguments of the Communist Party of Great Britain. that we must ake our central target in Britain. We must point out that far from it being ossible for the British State to bring democracy to Ireland. the world crisis f capitalism dictates the exact oppo-

ite. Ireland. in common with other ppressed nations. will have to have less and not more democracy as long s it remains under imperialist control. Once this point has been grasped by a wider number of those on the left. the

lway ahead will be cleared for building

~'a real movement in Britain in support of the struggle in Ireland. But it must be understood that there are no short uts in this task. There has been a emptation in the past to argue that all that was necessary was to build on the I'disillusionment' with the war that was 'allegedly growing among the British people as a whole. This is a dangerous argument.Those who are disillusioned will want to see art end to the war. And there are two ways in which wars can be ended. If the survival of British Capital depends. as it very well may. on avoiding a defeat in Ireland. we can be sure that it will use any mood of

'disillusionment that exists to justify a further round of massive repression in the hope of a 'final victory'. This is what the bourgeois press is now clamouring for. In a similar way. those arguments that stress the 'cost of the war' to the British taxpayer do nothing to clarify what is at stake. Such arguments strengthen the hold' of chauvinism in the working class and discredit the supporters of immediate withdrawal in the eyes of many left wing people who are confused by the Bill of Rights arguments.

The central task in Britain is to take up the dominant arguments that have prevented in the' past and still prevent today the building up of a real movement in solidarity with the Irish struggle. These arguments, boil down to the belief that it is possible for imperialism ·to be turned into its opposite without overthrowing it. that it is possible for the imperialist army to be neutral and that it is possible for the British state to allow democracy in Ireland.

For our part. we in the RCG have made these arguments our main target both in our pamphlet Ireland - British Labour and British Imperialism and in our constant propaganda in the labour movement. We welcome all discussion on our approach and on the way forward to building up support in Britain for the struggle of the Irish people.

As the slogans on our banners have read today: '

No British Plans for Ireland - Troops Out Now.

11

. -

British Imperialism, the Press and Ireland:

The cases of Daniel Lennon and Majella O'Hare

The British government and press consistently claim that the British Army is in Ireland to keep the peace. Yet in mid-August, British troops committed two murders without the slightest provocation. The murders resulted in the deaths of three children who happened to be nearby when one of the shootings took place. We are reproducing the facts in these cases - the cases of Daniel Lennon and Majella O'Hare - not because we believe that the murder of unarmed civilians is anything new to the conduct of the British Army in Ireland. We do so because we believe that British workers must above all know the truth about Ireland today. This is especially important when the truth shows that the British Army is not 'keeping the peace' at all, but isin fact carrying out a murderous campaign in order to maintain the domination of British capital over the Irish people. It is especially important when it shows how the Army propaganda machine works and how the British press covers up the traces which the Army leaves behind.

The facts relating to the first murder are the following:

*On 10th August Daniel Lennon. a. member of the Provisional IRA was shot dead by an Army patrol while driving through Andersonstown, West Belfast.

*The car went out of control and crashed into a crowd of civilians on the pavement, killing three children and severely injuring their mother. *As Lennon's companion climbed from the car he was hit three times by shots from British soldiers, despite the fact that he was directly in front of the injured Maguire family.

* Instead of calling an ambulance-

. which arrived only after some 25 minutes - the soldiers concerned themselves with hauling Lennon's body from the car and seizing an Armalite rifle from the back seat.

*British Army spokesman immediately issued a statement that shots had been directed at them from the car and that they themselves had fired only in, response to this action.

Now let us see how this incident was used by the British press to discredit the Republicari movement, each paper

. reporting details which contradict the accounts given in the other papers .

. 12

The Sun (11.8.76) stated that the incident arose when the Army, suspecting an. attempted ambush, 'deliberately broke cover to draw three gunmen out of' a butcher's shop in Andersonstown. The Times (11.8.76), however, contains no such exciting stories about attempted ambushes. More simply, the troops were fired on in Andersonstown, returned fire and gave chase when two 'gunmen' drove off in a car. They then 'opened fire on the gunman as a rifle was seen at the car window'. In the Daily Mail report 'an Army' LandRover patrol raced out of nearby barracks' after 'troops spotted a Provisional IRA gunman jumping into (a) car after sniping at soldiers' . Lennon's companion, we learn, was carrying a gun when he got out of the car. In the other papers, however, it is stated that the soldiers took the gun from the car. The Morning Star for instance, devoting a mere seven sentences to the story, taken from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, stated that Lennon's companion fired from the car before the Army retaliated, and that a loaded rifle was found in the car.

In point of fact, however, no' shots were fired from the car. They could not have been, for the simple reason that the gun found in the car was a dismantled Armalite, as the report in The Irish Times of 14.8.76 makes clear. Lennon was thus murdered in cold blood, and the deaths of the three children blamed on him and his organisation. By this murder, the British Army helped to create the conditions in which the 'Peace Marches' could gain strength. The British Government has seen these marches as a vital aid to its sustained attempt to isolate and destroy the republican movement before turning on the Catholic population as a whole. The British government was prepared to use all meansincluding murder - to encourage the 'Peace Marches'.

The. British Army's next step was to shoot and kill 12 year old Majella O'Hare on her way to church in Ballymoyer, Co. Armagh, at 11.45 a.m. on Sunday, 15th August. At 12.15 pm the Army issued its first statement; gunmen had opened fire on an Army patrol and a 12 year old girl had been hit; the Army had not returned fire . The ink had scarcely dried on this

statement before Betty Williams, leader of the middle class 'women for peace' had denounced the IRA using the Army account of the shooting to whip up support for the 'Peace Marches'. \But there were too many witnesses to the shooting, including Majella's father, for this story to stand and so just after 2pm the Army issued its second statement, to the effect that a gunman had opened fire on the Army patrol and it was 'believed' that the Army may have returned fire. This 'belief' had become certain by 3.30 pm, the time of the Army's third statement.

Such a swift retraction of its own lies is .unusual for the Army press office. Its main function is to whitewash Army terror and to dish up fabricated versions of events when Army shootings take place. If a retraction is unavoidable, it is usually delayed long enough to ensure that the original story is given full coverage in the British press. But this shooting came at a politically sensitive time just when the 'Peace March' organisers were capitalising on the deaths of the Maguire children. Thus the Army had no option but to admit the facts and a soldier has now been charged with manslaughter. This should not be taken' too seriously, however. Of all the soldiers indicted for murder or manslaughter in recent years, the only 'one jailed: was freed on appeal. Signi-

ficantly, none of the press, with. the .exception of the Sunday Times, reported the. Army's chopping and changing of its story. This is not sur-' prising. To do so would be to undermine the credibility of its own reportage which is often nothing more than verbatim accounts dictated from the Army press office .

Inadequate and distorted reporting of events such as those described above have been the stuff of British press coverage of the war ever since the troops went in in 1969. Take for example two deaths which occurred in 1971. On 3rd September Angela Gallagher was killed by a bullet which had been aimed at a British Army patrol in Belfast but had ricocheted off a wall. Both wings of the IRA denied responsibility. Three days later fourteen year old Annette McGavigan was killed by a British Army bullet aimed, accord-

,i~g to the Army, at a sniper. The differing emotional content of the

headlines used to announce these two Lessons f TO M

deaths reveal the bias of the press very 0

clearly:

The Times: 4.9.71. 'Baby girl shot dead as wave

of terrorist firing sweeps Belfast.' 7.9.71. 'Girl of 14 shot in Londonderry brings Ulster toll to 100 dead.'

Daily Telegraph: 4.9.71. 'IRA bullet kills baby in Belfast.'

7.9.71. 'Girl, 14, shot in IRA-Army battle.'

Daily Mail: 4.9.71. 'IRA gunman kills baby.'

7.9.71. 'Girl shot dead in gun battle.'

, Daily Express: 4.9.71. 'IRA in Street terror: baby shot dead.'

7.9.71. 'Girl of 14 killed in Derry crossfire.'

(E. McCann, The British Press and Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Socialist Research Centre, 1972.) These comparisons sho-w us that. biassed reporting does not happen as a matter of chance. Rather it is a necessary aspect of the imperialist war. The job of the Army IS made that much easier when the full scale of its repression is obscured. In the last week of September the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association reported no l~s~ . than four shootings of innocent civilians by the British Army, In the cases of Jim Campbell (shot whilst duck shooting near Crossmaglen) and a lorry driver shot at an Army checkpoint in Co. Tyrone, the Army has '~pologised'. They have not yet apologised for shooting a 23 year old woman and 18 year old Sammy Lynch - both shot in their cars for no apparent reason. The lise of such methods of necessity involves press distortion. News is presented in a form which will gain the support - or at least the acquiescence - of the working class in the oppressor country. Only in certain circumstances (as today in the south of Ireland) will direct state censorship be required. In most cases the thousand threads of ideology and finance which bind the m_edia to the needs of its ruling class will ensure that, as in the two cases examined above, the press will oblige its capitalist masters.

Daniel Shaw

There have been a number of attempts by. the left in the last eight years to build an anti-imperialist movement in support of the Irish struggle. The Irish Solidarity Campaign, Anti-Internment League and Troops Out Movement (TOM) have all had an initial impact. only to fall eventually by the wayside as a result of their political inadequacies. The latest attempt, that of the :rOM, was perhaps the most hopeful In so far as it saw its tasks as taking its demands into the working class. Basing itsel~ on the demand - Troops Out Now - It had the opportunity of concretely arguing in the labour movement the necessity for the ending of British domination in Ireland. By showing that it was the presence of the troops in Ireland that maintained the divisions in the working class it could have demonstrated the necessity for the British working class to take up the struggle against British imperialism. But the TOM has been unable to show why the British working class must take up the Troops Out Now demand: rather it has abandoned the demand itself. The result has been a political degeneration in the TOM and its organisational expression - a declining membership.

The RCG has consisteritly argued that the demands Troops Out Now and Self-Determination for the Irish People are not Just demands to be taken up at opportune moments of the struggle but are central to the defence of the interests of the British and Irish working class. The occupation of Northern Ireland by Britain is maintained because without it the continuance of imperialist rule would be placed in Jeopardy .. Repression is a necessary consequence of imperialist occupation. During the period of the post-war boom it was not possible to transform the Northern Ireland statelet. from its sectarian nature to a 'normal' bourgeois democracy. In a period of world capitalist crisis this becomes all the

more impossible. '

The movement for democratic rights - for self-determination - threatens capitalist 'Stability and must be put down by repression:

'Britain c.annot. afford a Palestinian-type solution Just off her western coast. A quarter of a century after we pulled out. there is still fighting between Jew and Arab. which is a major hazard to international peace. But it is no longer a

strategic area for us. Ireland is and always will be'. (Sir Frederick Catherwood CBI ex-President quoted in The Ulster

. Debate, Institute for the Study of Conflict, 1972).

The struggle in Ireland for the democratic right of self-determination is not. a struggle for a gradual transformatron because this is not possible in Ireland. The struggle for self-determination constitutes a fundamental challenge to imperialism itself.

This has decisive consequences for the British working class and its tasks in relation to Ireland. For to argue any-

, thing less than Troops Out Now. to ~rgue for example for a Bill of Rights. IS not only u~opian. in that it attempts to make capital do what it cannot do it is also reactionary. For it can anI; n:ean a con:InuatJOn of British repression WIth a human face'. On the other hand to argue for Troops Out Now means making a fundamental challenge .to Bri.tish imperialism. The only way .m which the working class of B~ltalil can show solidarity with the Irish struggle is to call into question the power and control of the state itself. As we argued in Revolutionary

Communist 2: '

'There is no permanent solution in Ireland which does not pose the destruction of imperialism, of the ruling class in I reland and Britain'.

The necessary conclusion to be drawn was - a!1~ is - that the struggle against the. Br!tIsh . state and the struggle in solidarity WIth the Irish people are the same. There can be no question of a real movement arising on the Irish question which does not start from this premise. Troops Out Now makes no sense as a slogan or demand outside of the open struggle against British capital itself.

The ReG joined the TOM because we agreed with its platform - Troops Out Now. Self-Determination for the Irish Pe<?ple as a Whole. It is a platform ~hlch at on~ and the same time provides a baSIS for a struggle against nat~o~al chauvinism and against irnperialist domination. It is the concrete expression of an independent working class standpoint on the Irish question. Having joined the TOM however. we soon discovered that the movement did not understand its own platform in a revolutionary way - but merely saw it as a tactical manoeuvre. TOM has been 'only too willing to abandon its demands when confronted by the dominant chauvinist position in the working class. i.e. the call for a Bill of Rights. Over the last 18 months it has not mobilised for a single event under the banner of its platform. Its refusal to adopt an anti-imperialist standpoint was, revealed most strik-

13

ingly in the mobilisation for thel BSC-C demonstration. Rather than] argue the necessity for Troops Out Now it adopted the tactful slogan 'End British Involvement'. By means of this manoeuvre it hoped to seduce 'broad layers' into 'unity in action' and force its much sought after (though never found) 'war weary liberals onto the streets. In such events we can recognise the politics of the International Marxist Group (IMG) which has recently argued that:

'The TOM should not be a socialist organisation appealing only to left-wing groups and conscious supporters of the anti-imperialist struggle. It should bel organised on the single issue of Ireland and open to all those who agree with

. the TOM demands. This criteria applies not only to the LP and CP members but Young Liberals, republican organisations, trade unions, soldiers relatives and . cultural organisations.' (IMG TOM National Delegate Conference document April 1976.)

Although the IMG are careful enough to refer to the TOM demands this is no more than window dressing Troops Out Now is a demand with revolutionary consequences. In today's conditions it is only the working class which has a fundamental interest in 'supporting this platform. The search for a 'broad layers' must inevitably involve, as it has done, a dilution of the 'TOM platform, preventing real opposition to British imperialism from emerging.

TOM's pre-occupation with 'unity in action' cannot take up the CP's proposal for a Bill of Rights, which is put forward as the first step to the solution of the 'Irish troubles', and the first step towards self-determination. Irene Brennan, an Executive member of the CPGB, has expressed this posi.tion most clearly. She writes:

'real progress for Northern Ireland will lead towards the direction of full Irish self-determination. But that cannot be achieved without building unity between sections of people in the north and south. An essential condition of this is the introduction of full democracy in the north.' (Northern Ireland: A Pro'gramme for Action, p. 23).

The TOM cannot argue against the CP because it does not take up the anti-chauvinist struggle. Unless this is .done, the British working class will not oppose its ruling class's domination of Ireland. The British state cannot playa 'progressive' role in Ireland, because imperialist domination is not a policy, but a necessity for British capital. The TOM is unable to explain this, and is therefore unable to coun.ter arguments which propose British parliamentary 'solutions to Irish problems.

'It was for these reasons that the RCG

". (" -' .

_14

argued against the TOM Labour I Movement Delegation to Ireland. The I political basis of this delegation can be judged from the following report: . 'Among the sponsors are 14 MPs including Ms Joan Maynard who says she supports the delegation because it is based on the principle of self-determination for the Irish people and in no way implies support for TOM or its demands.' (Morning Star 17.9.76.)

Joan Maynard also spoke on the TOM. platform at a meeting held during the' Labour Party Conference and said that she did not go all the way with TOM. This is no problem as the TOM does not go all the way itself. At this meeting the TOM banner behind the platform read 'TOM - Britain must withdraw'. No mention of Troops Out Now.

TOM's own propaganda on the delegation hails it as a 'positive step towards developing a progressive policy which would ensure a just and lasting solution to the "Irish problem". Nowhere is there an indication of what this policy might be; no hint that the only 'progressive policy' for the British working class is the campaign for Troops Out Now and Self-Determination, and that any other standpoint .serves to strengthen imperialism. Even supporters of TOM, wise after the event, cast doubt on the benefits

-of the Delegation: .

'It remains to be seen whether or not the delegation can have a significant impact in Britain. But if nothing else is achieved, fifty odd members of the British labour movement have seen something of the reality of British occupation of Ireland.' (Red Weekly 30.9.76).

A'S we have already argued, a movement cannot be built on the politics of adaptation. The pursuit of such politics inevitably leads to demoralisation and decline. Rather than confront this fact however, TOM has blamed its. own decline on such bogeys as press censorship.

'The Labour Government, fearing that the feeling for withdrawal might 'be channelled into a mass campaign has taken steps to counteract the growth of this mood. It has successfully leaned on the mass media to suppress news of the war, hoping that if it goes unreported people will think it has ceased'. (Troops Out, Summer 1976.)

It is difficult to believe that the TOM inhabit the same world as the British working class when such arguments are used. Censorship exists, but not in the form that TOM imagines. Almost .daily, news bulletins scream out 'More violence tonight in Northern Ireland' followed by a condemnation of 'terrorists' and so on. In August, the Daily Mail under the front page headline 'Rough Justice' described a scene in Derry when soldiers:

'gra:bbed six of the rioters, punched them, clubbed them, banged their heads against a wall and dragged them off, bleeding and sobbing to the cells.'

Far from suppressing news of the war, the ruling class when it suits it uses this type of propaganda exercise to maintain its alliance with the working class. By portraying the defenders of the catholic areas as 'rioters' and 'terrorists' it can rest assured of the support of the labour movement for their suppression. It is precisely this which TOM fails to understand - the hold of chauvinism and reformism in the working class.

The majority of the labour movement in this country has given its opinion on the Irish question. It has differences with the ruling class not over whether the troops should be in Ireland but what they should be doing there. In 1972 and again in 1975 it has called through the ruc congress for the introduction of a Bill of Rights. More recently the TUC has supported the utopian demand for a 'Better Life for Ali', a 'better life' which would be imposed by the British State.

The fight against such a 'solution' is the central task. This fight requires a head-on challenge to the grip of reformism in the working class. This can only be done by demonstrating concretely that the capitalist state can only defend the interests of capitalism. We ha ve to be a ble to show tha t there is no solution to the Irish crisis unless British Imperialism is defeated. Further there is no solution to the problems confronting the British working class unless British Imperialism is defeated. This is the unity of the struggle of the Irish and the British working class. The choice is clear: the opportunist politics of the TOM and no anti-imperialist movement; or revolutionary propaganda in the working class and the laying of the basis for an antiimperialist movement.

The ·revolutionary road, if it is -not to" emulate the progress of the TOM, must be built on the firmest foundations. That is why we speak not yet of a movement but of building the basis for a movement. By this we mean the propaganda work that trains a growing vanguard around the central questions and answers of the Irish struggle. The argument'S to stress are: (1) The impossibility of general reforms in this period, (2) the necessity for the British army to stay in Ireland if the interests of British Imperialism are not to suffer a crippling blow and (3) the corresponding necessity to challenge the national interest arguments that reformism and social democracy feed on. lf this stage is skipped, if the kind of propaganda we have been arguing for-

is not prioritised, no movement will emerge on the Irish question except as a transitory response to army activity. The RCG has begun this work:

=In Revolutionary Communist No.2, we have shown through a materialist analysis of the Irish question that the very survival of British Imperialism is at stake in the Irish struggle.

OWe have published the only comprehensive critique of the Bill of Rights position and the reformist arguments of the CPGB in our pamphlet - 'Ireland - British Labour and British Imperialism'.

oWe have argued in trades councils and in trade union branches for the initiation and sponsorship of labour movement bulletins as a forum of de.bate on the Irish question.

The reaction of TOM and the radical left to the development of the only materialist analysis of the Irish question has been absolute silence. Their reaction to the only systematic critique

of the' dominant position in the labour movement has again been silence. When we raised the question of producing propaganda in the labour movement through the initiation of bulletins, the TOM and the radical left attempted to silence this too. In Hackney Trades Council, TOM supporters joined with the CPGB in blocking the proposal. In Battersea and Wandsworh Trades Council, the IMG moved an amendment that the bulletin should be a 'general 'labour movement bulletin', i.e. one that did not have British Imperialism in Ireland, as its central theme. In Wandsworth Teachers Association, members of the Workers' League and the CPBML voted against a challenge to the chair when the motion calling for a bulletin was ruled out of order. The chair justified this ruling on the grounds that it would give the Association a bad name to support the bulletin in the light of the bombing campaign in Britain. .

The revolutionary significance of the Irish question inevitably divides those

who are prepared to wage a principled struggle against British Imperialism and those opportunists who prefer a cosy relationship with the reformist left. In leaving TOM we call on all those who agree with our standpoint on Ireland to support Hands Off Ireland, to ensure that it achieves the widest circulation in the labour movement and to contribute to its content. The months ahead will be crucial in testing out any undercurrents of revolt in-the working class on this question. The failure of TOM must not be seen as a demoralising blow but as the spur to building a genuine anti-imperialist movement in the future.

TROOPS OUT OF IRELAND NOW SELF DETERMINATION FOR THE IRISH PEOPLE.

Jim Johnson

Readers Letters

These are three of the letters that the RCG has received in the last few months on the question of Ireland. We hope that the ideas in this bulletin will promote debate in the labour movement and stimulate our readers to contribute to the letters column.

Hands off Irelan.d will also welcome replies to any of the articles printed here. We hope that those in the labour movement with a serious concern for building an anti-imperialist movement will enter a discussion on the political issues raised.

Hackney Trades Council

The following report may be of interest to your readers. It concerns a delegation from the Hackney Trades Council to the Minister for State for Northern Ireland. Mr R Moyle. at the Ulster Office, London, 3rd September 1976. The idea was to try to convince the minister of the need for a new approach on Northern Ireland and to break the bi-partisan policy.

. Bro. McMorrow, Chairman of the Hackney Trades Council, led the discussion on the role of the troops and I the question of their withdrawal. Bro. [Knowles, Secretary of the T.e. took up lithe issue of self-determination for the Irish people and so on. But at no time

was the question of immediate withdrawal of British troops raised at this stage in the discussion. This allowed the minister to come in with the argument that the Government was in favour of withdrawing the troops to barracks and reducing the number of troops in Northern Ireland as the level of violence allowed. 'We don't want troops in a policing role - we want to let the R.u.e. do it ... the R.u.e. has been changed from a paramilitary to an ordinary police force etc., and are 'now acceptable in more and more areas.'

I expressed the view that the Irish question can only be settled in an allIreland context and that the only way to a settlement was the immediate withdrawal of British troops and that this would forestall the bloodbath being talked about and that any declaration of intent would in fact lead to the bloodshed they say they fear.

The minister said bluntly, there would Ibe no declaration of intent or irnrne.diate withdrawal.

'iOn leaving the meeting. I said to Bro. Knowles, 'don't you think we are starting at the wrong end - isn't it the labour movement we should be trying to convince?'

While not disagreeing he pointed out that after all 'they met us for an hour which says something for the fact that they are prepared to listen and take note.' But we cannot expect the British Government to act against its own

interest and that is served by keeping the troops in Ireland. It is in the interest of the working class that immediate withdrawal of troops takes place and it is only the working class who will force this withdrawal. Anyone who is in favour of the troops remaining in Northern Ireland for however short a period is by definition in favour of the annexation of the country.

I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of the comrades on the delegation. But the approach of appealing to Government Ministers rather than building up support for immediate withdrawal in the working class is doomed to failure.

Patrick Faherty

London NW3

Political Status

r am a republican socialist prisoner at present serving a sentence in Long Kesh prison camp. I have laid my

. hands on issue 2 (May 75) of the Revolutionary Communist which mostly concerned the Irish revolution. Your analysis of the situation and previous history of the Irish struggle was quite objective and well investigated and was widely read amongst the IRSP personnel in this cage.

We are at present entering into an : intense period of struggle in prison 'here concerning the decision taken by ~IRees to deny us political status and the

repression (physical) has already be-

gun. This is accompanied by a barrage brutalities of British occupation, even of black propaganda from the N.lO. if I do not advocate their methods my(War Office in Ireland) so I am asking self. However, after visiting Noel, I you and all fellow socialist comrades was convinced of his innocence.

; to back us in our fight. The Provision- Another factor which- added stress to als are also fighting this issue tooth and a situation where a man was jailed for nail but the CP oriented Official IRA 30 years (minimum) for an act he had are taking up a compromise position no part in, was that Noel never ceased

do n0:l'ppear to 'want to enter the to fight against the system. Together

This 1S hardly surprising in vie with the PAC, he was fighting to take

stant retrograde step of ~ ,,- )1i<; case to the European Court of has led':;; them. '. ,u- 'Hl!J:tn' Rights. To the last he fought of the nal Libera-' ag:tin1j.t the prison regime on every ~\ye basis he could, including politicising

""':.a..Jl1Il(;!'Ilue despite rters and I other prisoners. I should explain that

ure you that from our point of this struggle d~ not take the form of progress is being made but a long petty agg~n against the screws,

hard struggle li,~till ahead. but a figh . such matters as educa-

~n Anti-imperialist prisoner. tional facilities and so on. He ex-

Cage 14. Long Kesh. Co. Antrim. 1re- plained to me that there was a 'liberal' land. prison welfare visitor who attempted (for security reasons we are not print- to make the maximum security unit ing the name of this comrade). more comfortable, and therefore more

established. by obtaining privileges for the long term prisoners. By contrast. Noel refused to take advantage of such

privileges as they had, as a means of forcing the closure of the unit. In the course of his imprisonment, Noel suffered three severe beatings, and in each case 'Rule 46' was invoked 'for his own protection'. 'Rule 46' means that prisoners who are beaten up are transferred to solitary confinement under punishment conditions. J saw him directly after the last beating, and could not even give him the cigarettes I had brought him. Noel also went on hunger strike in solidarity with Frank Stagg, and for the right to transfer, for Irish prisoners, to a prison situated in their homeland.

There is no way of knowing exactly how Noel died. The PAC applied for an independent autopsy through a barrister at the inquest. but this was refused 'on security grounds'. The official autopsy was carried out by a Home Office employed doctor. But even if Noel died from a heart attack, then the conditions under which he was imprisoned are the cause. and the British government are to blame.

I feel I should also mention something about Noel's political position. Noel was a marxist, an internationalist, a trade union militant and an unbreakable Republican. He tried to make a contribution to Ireland's national liberation struggle from behind bars with his analyses of developments in the- Six Counties and the Republican movement. As he said to me on his last visit - 'the one and only advantage of this place is that it gives you time to think, and the ability to be objective'. And Noel was objective. He was one of the few people that I have ever met on the Left who had the ability to admit that they had been wrong on this or that

f

I would . like to welcome the appearance of your Bulletin as a valuable contribution to the struggle against British imperialism. and for a proper understanding of the Irish question in the British labour movement.

I would also like to take this opportunity to bring some of the facts concerning the case of Noel Jenkinson to the attention of your reader.s. As you know, Noel died in Leicester Prison a short while ago, allegedly of 'natural causes? - ie a heart attack. I have spoken with a doctor friend of mine. who : tells me that this is feasible. However, all I can say is that I saw Noel a few days before he died and he seemed to be in the peak of health. He was only 46 years old, and generally very fit and strong. My friend told me that a heart condition could have developed rapidly due to stress. If this is the case one need not look far for the cause of such stress. For one thing, Noel was innocent of the charge laid against him. 'Full details of his frame-up can be found in the magazine of the Prisoners' Aid Committee Irish Prisoner, but among the many inconsistencies of the evidence there was the fact that Noel was arrested after he returned from holiday in Ireland. Thus, he was sup-

. posed to have carried out a major act of terrorism. got away to Eire, and obligingly returned to Britain so that he could be arrested by the police. When I first went to visit Noel, I was 'not certain whether he was guilty or not, and in a sense I considered that irrelevant. As a British socialist, I do not have the' the right to moralise about the methods of struggle adopted .by a colonial people subjected to the

16

issue, and who could say: 'I do not agree with you about everything, but let us work together on this issue that we do agree on' - and really mean it. One aspect of his objectivity is that Noel came to see that his allegiance to the 'Official' Repu blican movement had been misplaced. In his last letter he called for all out support for the Provisionals. I make this point, not because I have any axe to grind against the Officials, but because Official Sinn Fein are guilty of distortion in this matter. In the last edition of the United Irishman they quote from a letter by Noel, which they describe as his 'last authenticated letter'. The implications of this description is misleading and untruthful. I am not a member of any political group or organisation, but I can swear that Noel's last 'authenticated letter' was the one that appeared in Republican News supporting the Provisionals. One of the last messages that he received from outside prison came via me, and informed him that the letter had been published, and asking him to maintain a similar analysis in his correspondence. Noel was very pleased that the letter had been well received in the Provisional press.

In conclusion I would like to add that while I am not a member of the PAC I would urge your readers to give as much support to their work as possible. They need cash to help with Noel's Strasbourg appeal, which is still going

. forward, as well as their day-to-day work. A new edition of The Irish Prisoner is due out shortly. available from the PAC, c/o 142 Drummond St, London NWI.

Yours fraternally,

Jim Masters

Typesetting by Finsbury Park Typesetters

Ltd (TU)

11 Goodwin Street London N4 3HQ Printing by

, Rye Express Ltd (TU) 204 Peckham Rye London SE22